Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Language Teaching (2021), 1–15
doi:10.1017/S0261444821000069
T H I N K I N G A L LOW E D
Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language
teaching and learning
Melinda Dooly1* and Margarita Vinagre2
1
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain and 2Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
*Corresponding author: Email: melindaann.dooly@uab.cat
Abstract
In this article, the authors reflect on the ways research on Virtual Exchange (VE) has had an impact on
language education practices and, conversely, areas in which research has been underexplored, misapplied
or perhaps even over applied by VE practitioners in formal education settings. Starting from a brief his-
torical overview of VE, the text first outlines the features widely accepted as key aspects of this pedagogical
approach before considering to what extent research results can be identified in VE implementation.
Principal topics covered are the main aims regarding language development when VE is applied, assess-
ment of language development through VE and VE and intercultural competence. While the article is not
intended as a comprehensive review, it provides insight into the main foci of VE research and how these
findings are reaching the language classroom (primary, secondary and university).
1. Introduction: What is virtual exchange?
As practitioners and researchers of Virtual Exchange (VE), our remit for this article was to ‘think
aloud’ and provide our personal view of how past and current Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
research has been or is being successfully translated into VE-inspired teaching practices. We were
asked to consider how research has a bearing on VE in education and conversely which research
has not been well applied or is underexplored, misapplied or perhaps even over applied. We begin
by explaining why we take the perspective that VE can be considered a pedagogical approach.
Firstly, it is based on the number of publications, professional conferences and dedicated foundations
and digital platforms now available to the education community that refer to VE, quite often presented
as an approach to teaching languages (Dooly & O’Dowd, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2019). Following
Kumaravadivelu (2006) and Thornbury (2013), both of whom point out that teaching ‘methods’ can-
not be seen as ‘unproblematic’, we use the term to refer to the ways in which teachers adjust their
teaching through ‘methodological persuasions’, resulting in an ‘approach that accords uniquely with
their “sense of plausibility”’ (Thornbury, 2013, p. 193).
Given the predominance the Communicative Approach (CA) has in the theoretical framing of
many publications on VE, we have focused our attention principally on aspects of CA in VE research
and practice. However, it must be acknowledged that these categories are by no means clear-cut nor is
it possible for us to be aware of all the research that is available – in particular, in languages that we are
unfamiliar with. Thus, in our ‘thinking aloud’, we endeavour to provide some insight into the ways in
which VE has had an innovative impact on language teaching and learning – or failed to do so while
recognizing that there are many studies available that we have not covered.
Before discussing our views, we provide a brief historical overview of VE and its emergence as an
alternative communicative language teaching approach. One of the first challenges for any reflection
on VE, which has a relatively short lifespan as an education programme, is to select one terminology
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448210000692 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
and definition (it should be noted that first publications with significant impact began in the early
1990s). VE, Telecollaboration, eTandem or Teletandem, and Collaborative Online International
Learning (COIL) are some of the more well-known terms that have been used, often interchangeably,
to refer to the process of communicating and collaboratively learning with peers from different loca-
tions through the use of technology. Admittedly these terms are not considered by everyone to be
synonyms and each term has emerged from different epistemologies and contexts. Moreover, the
terms, if seen differently (some researchers do claim they are synonymous) are not mutually exclusive,
and arguments regarding differences in terminology are often linked to an individual’s dynamics and
background references.
So, for a more contemporaneous understanding of VE, a brief historical overview is useful. VE has
gained prominence as educators have begun to take advantage of significant advances in and better
accessibility to communication technology. In 1995, Warschauer referred to technology-enhanced
exchanges as ‘virtual connections’. In 2003, Belz used the term ‘telecollaboration’ to describe this
learning context: ‘ … internationally dispersed learners in parallel language classes use Internet com-
munication tools such as email, synchronous chat, threaded discussion, and MOOs1 (as well as other
forms of electronically mediated communication), in order to support social interaction, dialogue,
debate, and intercultural exchange’ (p. 2).
Seven years later, Lamy and Goodfellow (2010) underscored the difficulties of defining telecolla-
boration due to the wide range of pedagogical underpinnings that can be found in publications
using this term. Indeed, seeming simplicity at times can be Gordian.
Etymologically speaking, telecollaboration can be defined simply as ‘collaboration’ coupled with
the Greek prefix ‘tele,’ which means distance ( … ). Thus, we have collaboration at a distance.
[But this] is far too facile to encompass the complexities of the underlying learning principles
and the activities involved in educational telecollaborative endeavors. (Dooly, 2017, p. 169)
As the practice of using the Internet to connect learners has gained ground (usually through compu-
ters but increasingly with hand-held devices such as mobile phones or even gaming devices), other
terms have been applied: ‘eTandem2 or Teletandem’ (Telles, 2009; Vinagre & Muñoz, 2011), ‘globally
networked learning’ (Starke-Meyerring & Wilson, 2008) or ‘online interaction and exchange or OIE’
(Dooly & O’Dowd, 2012).
In parallel to the growing use of communication technology for connecting language learners, there
has been a movement to consolidate the pedagogical foundations for this type of exchange and to
establish VE as a pedagogical approach (Vinagre, 2017; O’Dowd, Sauro, & Spector-Cohen, 2019;
Dooly & Masats, 2020; Vinagre & Oskoz, 2020). O’Dowd (2018a) has argued that two of the most
commonly used terms, VE and telecollaboration, are applicable to the same ‘pedagogically-structured
online collaborative learning initiatives’ (p. 2), while in the same article recognizing that ‘over the past
three decades, approaches to virtual exchange have evolved in different contexts and different areas of
education and these approaches have happened, to a great extent, in blissful isolation of one another’
(p. 2).
Finally, political forces cannot be ignored when considering which term eventually emerges foremost
in mainstream discourse (Ku, 2000; Habermas, 1962[2011]). In 2015, the European Union Education
Ministers’ Paris Declaration announced imminent and substantial funding would be forthcoming for
VE initiatives in education. These funded VE proposals should aim to ‘promote citizenship’ and ‘the
values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination’ as well as prevention of ‘extreme radicalism’.
That same year, in the USA, the Stevens Initiative was established to promote VE as an international effort
to build ‘global competence’ and ‘career readiness ‘amongst youth around the world.
Thus, VE is ‘the term being increasingly used by foundations, governmental bodies and
inter-governmental bodies’ (Dooly & O’Dowd, 2018, p. 15). Even if one does have issues with the
implicit underlying agendas of these institutions (Kramsch, 2013), VE appears to be set as the most
recognizable term, at least in the EU and the USA. In South America, VE is mostly encountered in
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069Language Teaching 3
tandem learning format (a partnership with different mother tongues, aimed at learning the language
and culture) and therefore, teletandem is a more predominant term.
Similarly, just as there has been different opinions about the most applicable term, there have also
been many proposed definitions. For the sake of brevity, we describe it as a pedagogical approach, sup-
ported through the affordances of digital communication tools (e.g. cell phones, tablets, computers),
which aims to implement the language teaching principles outlined in CA. In VE, work may be carried
out synchronously, which is a growing trend as teachers and students become more familiar with the
use of communication software such as Skype, Google Meet or Zoom, although VE may also be done
asynchronously through shared authoring tools such as documents, blogs or forums. Although a com-
bination of both formats seems to be ideal, an asynchronous format is often preferred when there are
difficulties in finding times and dates that coincide in scheduling or when technological infrastructures
are less reliable.
Here are some key features of VE: (1) It is a highly flexible practice that can be incorporated into
one’s teaching in a variety of manners (in-class or hybrid learning environments); (2) It is generally
envisioned as an ideal opportunity to engage students in social interaction and collaboration with
other participants whom they would be less likely to meet in ‘normal’ educational circumstances;
(3) it has been considered an alternative to physical mobility for students with disabilities or economic
difficulties as well as facilitating inclusion, language practice and internationalization for all; (4) Some
VE may include use of self-directed online language learning platforms (e.g. Busuu, Italki) as part of a
wider array of planned learning activities (as part of guided language learning that takes place in
instructed formal settings with partner teachers). However, VE is different from self-guided learning,
as will be explained in more detail in the following sections.
A significant difference of VE from other forms of CA teaching is that it is supported through the
connection of language TEACHERS and LEARNERS in different geographical locations and requires carefully
designed tasks and activities that must be COLLABORATIVELY designed and implemented between more
than one teacher. We highlight teachers, learning and collaboration because, recently, digital learning
environments and communication technology have leapt into the forefront of educational news as the
Covid 19 global pandemic has forced teachers and learners around the world to rapidly shift to online
configurations. However, online teaching is not the same as VE. VE involves a mutually supportive,
guided learning process between class partners (including teachers); it is not a one teacher per class
set up.
2. Communication as a basis for VE in language teaching
VE can be seen as originating from the CA in language teaching (Brammerts, 1996; Johnson, 1996;
Kern, 1996; Kinginger, 1998; Kinginger, Gourvès-Hayward, & Simpson, 1999; Müller-Hartmann,
2006; Dooly, 2010, 2017; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017; Vinagre, 2017). It is not within the
scope of this article to provide more than a broad description of CA, however it is important to under-
stand the impact this approach has had on language teaching in the past 50 years as well as on the
development of VE in language teaching and learning. This approach, albeit still loosely defined
and often debated, is one of the most widely acknowledged pedagogical frameworks for language
material design, class planning, language assessment, teacher education and even curriculum policies
in many EU countries. As Thornbury (2013, p. 188) explains:
The ‘big idea’ that fuelled the communicative approach ( … ) was Hymes’ (1972) notion of com-
municative competence – the knowledge ‘when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about
with whom, when, where in what manner’ ( … ) encouraging course designers to specify learning
objectives – and to assess their achievement – in terms of language use.
Drawing on Brown’s (2007) list of key features underpinning CA, we underscore the following attri-
butes that are specifically related to VE: (1) a focus on the components of communicative
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448210000694 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
competences: functional, sociolinguistic, grammatical, discourse and strategic; (2) an emphasis on
authentic and meaningful language use that also heeds the relevance of language forms; (3) a perspec-
tive of fluency and accuracy as complementary, not mutually exclusive; (4) priority on language learn-
ing tasks that prepare language learners with the communication competences they need outside the
classroom; (5) an aim to develop autonomous language learners; (6) a reconceptualization of the
teacher-fronted classroom; and (7) prominence of cooperative and collaborative learning. All of
these traits contribute to core postulates of VE in language teaching and learning. In particular the
use of technology to connect learners across the globe has helped validate the increase of VE to pro-
mote meaningful language use; pushing the boundaries of ‘classroom tasks’ by providing justification
for communication between learners outside the class and thereby ensuring more opportunities for
learners to focus on language forms as they use the target language, develop their fluency and accuracy
and encounter genuine reasons for developing different communicative competences.
VE pedagogical design also has much in common with other communication-based approaches to
language teaching, primarily Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014),
Project-Based Language Teaching (PBLT; Dooly & Masats, 2020) and Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) or English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) (Smit & Dafouz, 2012;
Loranc-Paszylk, 2016). In an international survey, it was found that many teachers use TBLT as a
main basis for their VE planning (Evaluate Group, 2019); in a large part attributable to language learn-
ing that revolves around the completion of meaningful tasks between partners, allowing for spontan-
eous use of the target language for genuine communication. PBLT has also been increasingly cited as a
basis for VE design (Beckett, Slater, & Mohan, 2020; Thomas & Yamazaki, 2021 also described as
Task-based Projects (TBP)). In VE-based PBLT, the students learn by engaging in personally mean-
ingful projects that are designed to build knowledge and develop skills that have an impact outside of
the classroom, while incorporating language learning and intercultural understanding through con-
nections with global learning partners. Similarly, both CLIL and EMI3 are frequently cited as an add-
itional framework for VE (O’Dowd, 2018b). These are methodologies that provide curriculum content
in a foreign language which can lead to increased subject knowledge and enhanced L2 proficiency and
share with VE their potential to strengthen bilingualism, foster multilingualism and multiculturalism,
increase the mobility of citizens and encourage internationalization (Vinagre, 2016a).
Documented examples have described the incorporation of TBLT, PBLL and CLIL/EMI as comple-
mentary to the VE design (and at times inextricable from the VE set up), further advancing the argu-
ment that VE can help advance CA principles into increasingly innovative pedagogical practices. In
the next sections, we look at what research in VE can tell us regarding the expansion of CA principles
into VE educational practices. In order to do so, we shall structure the remainder of the article in three
sections: (a) research findings that have not been well applied or are underexplored, (b) research find-
ings that have been reasonably well applied and (c) research findings that have been over applied.
3. Research findings that have not been well applied or are underexplored
Since one of the main aims of VE entails improving students’ foreign language competence and
knowledge by connecting learning with other speakers, it comes as little surprise that researching
how this aspect is developed has been the focus of multiple studies in specialized literature on VE.
Most published studies on VE discuss gains in foreign language and intercultural competence (for syn-
theses, see Sauro, 2014; Lewis & O’Dowd, 2016; Avgousti, 2018; Cunningham & Akiyama, 2018),
although there are increasingly more reports on teacher development in VE (O’Dowd, 2018a) along
with a small, but growing interest in cross-disciplinary (language and content) VE (Loranc-Paszylk,
2016). Studies on VE in language education have used quantitative, qualitative and mixed method
approaches for data analysis; the predominant type of study is a single case (i.e. one exchange; see
research review by Cappellini, 2019). When the focus is on language development, many of the studies
look principally at the acquisition of lexicon and grammatical structures of the target languages,
although some studies have also explored the enhancement of overall language skills and language
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069Language Teaching 5
use (speaking, listening, mediation) and the development of fluency and accuracy (Chun, 2015;
Cunningham & Akiyama, 2018). In most of the studies that have been included in this text, the
role that VE interaction plays has been described as three-fold since the exchanges can facilitate nego-
tiation of meaning, support focus on form (often through self and peer corrective feedback), and help
develop socio-pragmatic competence through target language use.
While many publications have provided valuable insights into how linguistic development takes
place in VE, in teaching practice research findings have not always been well applied. This is due
to the difficulty of accurately measuring language development longitudinally, an area that remains
a challenge for both research and practice. Trying to assess and verify precise learning gains is not
always straightforward since ‘language competence development is complex and discontinuous and
takes place over long periods of time’ (Ellis, 2015, p. 297). This is particularly problematic for VE
research since most studies describe small scale projects, usually realized over relatively short periods
of one to two sessions a week from a month to three months (the usual timespan of one semester; a
few VE occasionally last between six months to a year). Even if the VE is reiterated in a programme for
years, the students involved change annually. Efforts to address this issue include projects such as
Evaluate and Evolve4; large scale studies that involve mixed-method approaches to the analysis of
both quantitative and qualitative data gathered. However, the lack of longitudinal studies continues
to make this aspect difficult to measure rigorously and poses a problem that is difficult to resolve.
Assessment also presents a challenge for pedagogical application of research findings on VE. In
particular, there are often misalignments between the type of linguistic skills being developed by
the students through VE tasks and how they are being assessed by the teacher. It is not uncommon
to read publications of VE that describe a predominantly oral modality for the learner interaction
that is then assessed through a written essay of personal reflection of the experience. Different ways
to overcome this shortcoming are to ensure that the (oral) tasks are assessed as part of the students’
formative evaluation and, if summative evaluation is also required, that the final exam includes ques-
tions that can assess adequately the type of knowledge and skills developed by those tasks. Another
potential way forward is to include portfolio-type collection of the ongoing interactions from the
VE as a means of assessing both the process of VE (i.e. students’ interaction) and the final learning
product (tasks) thereby ensuring that the assessment of the VE fully reflects the students’ efforts
and what they have learned through the experience. Inevitably, all of the assessment process ties
back to the task design for the VE (Hauck, Müller-Hartmann, Rienties, & Rogaten, 2020).
As regards under-explored research sectors of VE, its application to beginner or younger learners is
still lagging behind (Pérez & Vinagre, 2007; Dooly & Masats, 2020). Most documentation of VE is in
the area of foreign language learning in Higher Education, where the practice has become more wide-
spread. There are far fewer publications by practitioners implementing these exchanges in primary,
secondary or vocational education (Dooly & O’Dowd, 2018). There are many possible causes for
the smaller number of examples in primary education, not least of which are presumed constraints
of young learners, such as shorter attention span, specific topic interests, less developed communica-
tive competences (in all languages), more rudimentary technological skills, and the need to oversee
and limit online engagement with others (Dooly, 2015). Moreover, with very young learners, the
usual modality for communication is oral since they may not have sufficiently developed literacy skills
for text-based interactions that required reading and writing. Despite these constraints, it is recognized
that there are thousands of primary and secondary schools involved in some form of VE. The
E-twinning platform5 alone has 868,623 teachers and 214,788 schools registered and claims a database
of 114,474 projects. Notwithstanding the large numbers, the lack of publications for these age levels
remains a key issue; undoubtedly, an underlying reason is that primary and secondary teachers do
not engage as frequently in researching and publishing about their experiences as university tea-
chers/researchers do.
Still, it should be noted that there are some published examples of VE projects with very young
learners (Bejarano Sánchez & Giménez Manrique, 2018; García-Martínez & Gracia-Téllez, 2018;
Morcilo Salas, 2018). The commonality of these projects lies in the combination of deliberate
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448210000696 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
presentation and practice of potential ‘ad hoc’ linguistic input, with ample visual aids (e.g. flashcards,
mimes and games) before the actual interaction, followed by explicit exercises to heighten language
awareness of the target language used during the exchanges. Despite these examples of VE in primary
education, there is a need for more research into the transfer to VE of successful strategies for teaching
young language learners in-class. For instance, collective story-telling or shared kinaesthetic and affect-
ive activities such as shared singing circles have long been bastions of language learning in primary
education. These could easily be a backbone of a VE project as they not only activate lexical memory,
phonic recitation and practice but through VE, an authentic, engaged audience is ensured (Anguera
Cerarols, 2013; Dooly, 2015). As has already been noted, published examples of research into the
implementation of VE in primary education remain anecdotal with few funded programmes to exam-
ine its impact. This may contribute to a lack of teacher awareness regarding how to design, implement
and assess such projects with young beginners.
There is also a paucity in studies on VE in secondary education, although the practice is beginning
to gain some ground (Bonet Pueyo, 2018; Bruun, 2018; Ingelsson & Linder, 2018). A study, based on a
systematic review of publications on telecollaborative projects – which compared the typology of tasks
described in VE studies carried out with university students with those carried out with secondary
students – found that ‘studies with secondary school pupils appear to be less interested in tasks
with a final, collaborative outcome than those conducted with university students’ (Pol, 2013,
p. 41). As with primary education, it can be surmised that this is also attributable in some ways to
insufficient teacher education in VE regarding how to design VE activities that are meaningful and
engaging for the learners.
This same aspect may also be a hindrance for VE in vocational education, especially given the
on-going debate regarding the required teaching competence for vocational education (Cedefop,
2017). On the whole, language teaching in vocational education tends to focus on teaching languages
for specific purposes, usually with the accent on job-related language skills and quite ‘traditionally-
focused’ classes (Hernández-Gantes & Blank, 2009; Poedjiastutie & Oliver, 2017), with little emphasis
on actual use of the target language (Mahbub, 2019). There does not tend to be much institutional
cooperation between content vocational teachers and language teachers (Isaksen, 2018), and modest
institutional support for innovation. An additional problem appears to be the disconnect between
goals and outcomes of VE applied in secondary and vocational education (mainly focused on ‘lan-
guage practice’ only) and the learners’ needs (language competences that must be assessed for univer-
sity entrance exams, vocational studies or employment opportunities following graduation).
4. Research findings that have been reasonably well applied
One pivotal advantage that can be found in the application of research findings on VE to language
learning is that it can help ensure meaningful use of the target language by the learners
(Müller-Hartmann, 2006; Chun, 2015; O’Dowd, 2018a). Much research into VE language teaching
practices tout positive gains in language learning by foregrounding functional, sociolinguistic, gram-
matical, discourse, strategic communicative competences and intercultural competences (Dooly &
O’Dowd, 2012; Vinagre, 2016b; Avgousti, 2018; Çiftçi & Savaş, 2018; Cunningham & Akiyama,
2018; O’Dowd & Dooly, 2020). Little (2001), elaborating on the growing role of technology in language
education in general and of eTandem in particular, suggested that these practices could hold an essen-
tial role in promoting learning autonomy; a point that has been picked up on as a significant area of
research in VE (Cappellini, Lewis, & Rivens Mompean, 2017). Another key area where VE stands out
is the opportunity for successfully integrating all components of language learning, as proposed by the
Council of Europe (2018); the communication that is required to complete a task, activity or project in
VE often requires consolidated deployment of different modalities and communicative competence
(Beckett et al., 2020). As Whyte and Gijsen (2016) explain, VE ‘offers unique opportunities for
purposeful interaction in a communicative context with interlocutors outside the classroom as recom-
mended by second language research’ (p. 164).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069Language Teaching 7
Explicitness (e.g. language awareness, focus on form) is another backbone of CA. It must be noted
that there has been less research into VE that highlights learners’ focus on form (FonF) than more
general language gains related to authentic language use. Still, as the field has grown in both practice
and research, studies on FonF have also increased. Findings indicate that VE contribute to more expli-
cit FonF by learners (see Ware & O’Dowd, 2008; Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011; Vinagre & Muñoz, 2011;
Akiyama, 2014; Li, 2020 for illustrative examples of such studies). VE has been found to be particularly
useful for drawing learners’ attention to formulaic sequences, communication strategies such as fillers
and sociopragmatic features that are common to ‘everyday’ talk without resorting to contrived role
plays or repetitive drills. Still, it is acknowledged that VE is frequently implemented with a rationale
of ‘more authentic’ language practice and far less interrogation of whether it promotes accuracy.
In their review on studies of technology-mediated TBLT, González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) high-
light the significance of carefully scaffolded interaction in order to close ‘the gap between form-based
and function-based learning’ (Liang, Xie, & Gao, 2020, p. 277). Moreover, in order to be successful,
much like TBLT or PBL approaches, VE activities must be designed to include these key aspects
(Beckett & Slater, 2018; Dooly & O’Dowd, 2018; Dooly & Masats, 2020; Hauck et al., 2020): explicit-
ness (ensuring student focus on how they are learning the language, the competences they are acquir-
ing and the linguistic and non-linguistic communicative features they are using); structure
(pedagogical design that fully supports the acquisition and use of the language); and fit (technology
tools, language use and didactic expectations that are appropriate to the learners’ level). Numerous
studies have shown that gains in VE are due to the typology of the task design that was assigned
for the language exchange (O’Dowd, 2015; Lewis & O’Dowd, 2016; Vinagre, 2017; O’Dowd et al.,
2019; Hauck et al., 2020). And while studies into FonF predominantly look at adult language learners
involved in VE (Cunningham & Vyatkina, 2012; Cunningham & Akiyama, 2018), interactional ana-
lysis of VE between very young language learners in carefully scaffolded exchanges also indicate lan-
guage noticing and use of formulaic language and short turn-taking devices (Dooly, 2015). As with
older beginning level adults, the pre-task work, the task design and expedient input-based instruction
during the exchange were key to ensuring language uptake.
This brings us to the role of the teacher in VE. Many single case studies as well as a few large-scale
studies (Fuchs, Snyder, Tung, & Han, 2017; Evaluate Group, 2019) foreground the multiple challenges
faced by teachers when designing and implementing a VE approach. The double-edged sword of VE is
that, while it opens up manifold opportunities for the use of the language productively and receptively,
these often occur in unrehearsed contexts. VE is a learner-centered and task-oriented practice wherein
the traditional teacher’s role is no longer predominant. For many teachers and students, this heigh-
tened learner responsibility not only produces anxiety (despite the motivation of engaging with others
in the target language), but it may also increase a sense of taking part in unfocused activities that seem
to lack specific linguistic aims. Hopefully, as with other pedagogical approaches related to CA such as
CLIL/EMI or TBLT, VE as a pedagogical approach to language learning will become an integral part of
teacher education curricula in the near future so these doubts and worries can be overcome.
5. Research findings that have been mis- or over applied
The focus on intercultural learning seems an almost natural extension of the opportunities afforded
through the increased contact between language learners from different parts of the world and,
together with language development, this is the area where much of the research on VE converges
(Ortega, 2017; Çiftçi & Savaş, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2019). A recurring aspect mentioned in publica-
tions on VE refers to enhanced intercultural communicative competences as a result of sustained com-
munication with speakers of other languages and cultures. However, there have been interrogative
voices regarding assumed intercultural gains that occur merely through contact with speakers of
other languages (Helm, 2013, 2016; Dooly, 2016; Flowers, Kelsen, & Cvitkovic, 2019;
Godwin-Jones, 2020; O’Dowd & Dooly, 2020). Below we describe the main gaps we perceive in the
research.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02614448210000698 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
Many studies mention the underlying need for negotiation as a pathway to development of inter-
cultural competences (Avgousti, 2018; Çiftçi & Savaş, 2018). However the emphasis tends to be on a
rather binary, quasi-utilitarian perspective of global communication wherein effective and ‘productive’
communication is the ultimate aim. In short, in a large number of reports on the outcomes of VE,
claims of gains in Intercultural Competence (IC) are recurrently based on abridged notions of
Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) and/or Intercultural Awareness (IA) that emerge
as the learners get to know each other and discuss topics in the foreign language (Train, 2006;
Dooly, 2016; Helm, 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2020). Moreover, it seems that the modality itself (commu-
nication technology), which serves as the conduit for opening up the classroom, frequently leads the
teacher to assume there are intercultural gains simply because the learners are engaging in a language
exchange with others outside of their immediate socio-cultural environment. On a positive note, VE
research has contributed to raising awareness of the potential for these gains but at the same time it
has highlighted shortcomings in the application of the VE pedagogical approach, such as an under-
application of ICC; or at least little that goes beyond the superficial. In part this may be due to related
aspects such as teachers’ expectations, assumptions and theoretical grounding regarding ICC and IA
often lacking profundity in VE teacher training courses.
Many of the studies on VE gloss over the difficulties of measuring intercultural learning and too
often minimize the challenges and complexity of identifying and verifying gains in intercultural com-
petence (Bueno-Alastuey & Kleban, 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2019). The reasons behind this obstacle are
many, starting with the fact that there is not one single definition that holds consensus among scholars
on interculturality. As Furstenberg (2010) explains, this is inherent to the definition of culture itself
which is ‘a highly complex, elusive, multi layered notion that encompasses many different and over-
lapping areas and that inherently defies easy categorization and classification’ (p. 329). Likewise, there
are a multitude of definitions for intercultural competence. A common denominator underlying
almost all definitions of this competence is the capacity to step beyond one’s own culture and interact
with others from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Taking this notion as their basis, most models of ICC elaborate on the different aspects of (self)
awareness and internal transformation required in the process of becoming successful intercultural
communicators (see Dooly, 2016 for an overview of definitions related to IC in telecollaboration;
based on Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) synthesis of ‘300-plus terms and concepts’; see also
Vinagre & Corral, 2019). In relation to this, we have pinpointed this as a gap in VE: the frequent over-
simplification of what is entailed in the notion of intercultural awareness and intercultural competence
(Train, 2006; Kramsch, 2014; Dooly, 2016; Alonso & Vinagre, 2017; Godwin-Jones, 2019; Golubeva &
Guntersdorfer, 2020).
Another problematic issue we have detected is the way in which intercultural gains are predomin-
antly assessed in VE (Avgousti, 2018). As already mentioned, gains in the development of intercultural
competence are difficult to verify; in particular a key challenge lies in the assessment of the attitudinal
component that is inherent to most definitions of IC. Evaluation of attitude is highly complex (De
Vellis, 2003) not only in VE but also in face-to-face learning environments. Some VE reports claim
to document IC gains by the number of references to ‘Big C’6 discoveries in self-reflection. Many
other VE practitioners overly rely on self-report methods with a strong emphasis on communication
aspects related to negotiation of moments of conflict or episodes of new awareness of similarities or
differences between the cultures (again, usually in reference to ‘Big C’) of the learners involved.
Self-reporting, which is a frequent tool for measuring IC in VE, can also produce out-of-context,
short statements that can be misleadingly assumed to represent IC gains. And, of course, there is
always the inevitable question of self-censoring that goes along with self-reporting. As Merino and
Tileaga (2011) have argued, self-reporting about IC can be a way of showing one’s self in a better
light as well as simply being an articulation of what others want to hear (e.g. the ‘politically correct’
answer for the teacher).
Another issue in VE that is a commonplace in IA and IC debates is the recurrent essentialism of
culture (O’Dowd & Dooly, 2020). In the words of Dervin and Gross (2016, p. 3): ‘As paradoxical as it
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069Language Teaching 9
might seem, an approach to intercultural competence that fails to point coherently, cohesively and
consistently to the complexity of self and the other fails to accomplish what it should do: Helping peo-
ple to see beyond appearances and simplifying discourses – and thus lead to ‘realistic’ encounters.’
Thus, a key trait of VE that is frequently and positively highlighted – the opportunity for contact
with ‘realistic encounters’ with users of the target language – can potentially lead to entrenched per-
sonal stereotypes if not interrogated more critically in the application of the VE approach. Indeed,
uninformed use of communication technology has been reported to exacerbate individual prejudices
(Avram, Micallef, Patil, & Menczer, 2020). For language teaching, and in particular, VE, this must be
squarely taken on board. Kramsch (2013) stresses the role:
( … ) of a cyberculture that is increasingly shaping both language and culture and transforming
social life. As the computer transforms the very time/space axes of our existence and redefines the
real, it has generated feelings of empowerment, of liberation from cultural conventions and con-
straints; it has opened up dreams of connectivity and ubiquity of an a-cultural, a-historical kind.
( … ) For language teachers, the question of culture will become more acute: Which culture to
teach in a multilingual world of diasporas, forced migrations and global communication tech-
nologies? (pp. 312–313).
Moreover, VE teachers are often unprepared for the ‘grey’ areas that emerge from these ‘authentic’
exchanges. In particular, teachers will often try to downplay tensions and conflicts that may arise,
rather than embracing these moments as opportunities for dialogue and reflection (Helm, 2016;
Godwin-Jones, 2019). Basing her framework on Lederach (1995), who argued for legitimizing ‘conflict
as an agent of change’ (p. 19) – as well as work carried out by Phipps and Levine (2010), who asserted
that ‘language pedagogies [should] rise to the challenges of conflict transformation because conflict
transformation occurs in languages’ (p. 12) – Helm (2013) proposes a dialogic model for telecolla-
boration. In this model, tensions between groups or individuals need not be avoided or ‘smoothed
over’; rather a more dialogic model that embraces ‘openness and sincerity’ where ‘conflict and dissen-
sus’ are ‘seen as a natural social phenomenon and as a key for learning to take place’ (p. 33).
With guided reflection, individual discomfort encountered during these distanced exchanges can
‘serve the important function of bringing to awareness each individual’s personal boundaries’
(McConachy & Liddicoat, 2016, p. 18) and help push the learners’ understanding of the diversity
that is composite to individual identities. This may require coping with ambiguity – a disposition
that even VE teachers may have difficulties with, let alone their students:
IC can be quite unstable as it is negotiated in interaction with ‘complex’ people and in specific
contexts, which has an impact on power relations. In some situations, because one feels inferior
or simply because one is tired, the noble objectives of non-essentialism and non-culturalism can-
not be met even if one tries hard. IC should thus recognize their importance but, at the same time
urge its supporters to remain aware of the ‘simplexity’ of any act of interaction. (Dervin & Gross,
2016, p. 5).
‘Simplexity’ is a portmanteau made up of ‘simple’ and ‘complexity’ that captures the fluid continuum
between the two states which humans are enacting and living all the time. This is quite different from
the oversimplication of research results, for instance findings that indicate VE can elicit IC gains. The
overgeneralization of findings of IC gains in VE may lead the teacher to assume that engagement with
others is sufficient, without taking into consideration the ‘simplexity’ of the VE environment and the
need to support IC and IA development.
While the experience of interacting with new collaborative partners may be generally exciting,
innovative or motivating, it may also elicit less than positive feelings at times. Frustration due to
the amount of effort needed, feelings of inadequacy, worries about lack of technological skills needed
for the VE; there are innumerable reasons why students may feel negative about the exchange, which
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482100006910 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
can subsequently be transmitted to their partners and interpreted negatively as regards their IC. The
assumption by most teachers and students is that VE is inherently motivating (Evaluate Group, 2019,
p. 31), but at the same time it can be anxiety-producing – a feature that is far less pronounced in
reporting of outcomes of VE. Moreover, when negative reactions are documented, potential causes
for these feelings are not usually attributed to or dealt with under the paradigm of IA or IC by VE
practitioners; normally they are considered as pedagogical or technological issues.
Finally, research on IC development has been mostly led by content-based analysis of students’
contributions and reports. Given that IC includes the knowledge, skills and attitudes speakers need
to interact successfully in intercultural situations (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Risager, 2007) it
comes as little surprise that studies fall short of providing the full picture especially in regards to
the attitudinal component, which is, as discussed above, the most difficult to measure. At the same
time, it is arguably the most important given that it conditions the success of intercultural relations
(Byram, 1997). The fact that attitudes are so relevant for intercultural learning and at the same time
so problematic to assess has led researchers to look for alternative analyses that can provide insights
into its development. Recent efforts include applying linguistic approaches such as the systemic-functional
Appraisal model (Vinagre & Corral, 2018; 2019; Cunningham & Ryshina-Pankova, 2020; Vinagre &
Oskoz, 2020), analysing linguistic items in virtual interaction using software programs such as
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) (Helm & Baroni, 2020), or using combinations of models
such as Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) socio-educational model of motivation and attitude, Bennett’s
(1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity and Byram’s (1997) model of ICC (Abrams,
2020) to the analysis of VE interaction and tasks. Results from these studies have yet to be transferred
to the classroom given that they are very recent. However, findings can be applied to scaffolding VE inter-
cultural communication by ensuring that students prioritize social interaction over task completion and
learn to face diversity and conflicts rather than avoiding them.
6. Conclusions
VE is a highly flexible pedagogical practice that stems from the CA to language teaching. VE makes
optimal use of communication technology to transform and transfer language learning from within
classroom boundaries to worldly interactions with other geographically-distanced learners. Key
goals of VE are to engage students in social interaction and collaborative learning with learners
whom they would not normally communicate so they can use and reflect on the target language
through authentic dialogue. Documentation of VE has escalated in recent years, and studies predom-
inantly show positive results in language learning and gains in intercultural awareness. However, there
are also some notable shortcomings in VE research and practice. Assessment of both linguistic and
intercultural competences tend to be based on short-term, single case studies, sometimes with only
one of the two (or more) partner groups involved in the data compilation. This is compounded by
a lack of systemic application of parameters for assessment. Regarding IA and IC, the predominance
of self-reporting and the evaluation of the attitudinal component are particularly problematic, along
with an over-simplification of IC. This reductivism can lead to claims of development in IC that may
be exaggerated in dimension and permanence. Moreover, VE teachers frequently avoid dealing with
the tensions or conflicts that may arise during the exchanges, preferring to focus on reflections
about awareness of partners’ ‘Big C’ (topical issues) as examples of increased IA or IC.
This brings up a final key area for improvement in VE, teacher education. Teachers need to be
introduced to the approach and provided with sufficient training on how to implement VE in their
teaching. They need to become familiar with and know how to connect the increasing volume of the-
oretical and empirical studies to the enhancement of their own practices. Diversity of application is
intrinsic to the wide reach that VE has for teaching and learning (literally spanning the entire
globe, limited only by access to the necessary technology) and in this respect VE teacher education
must be both context-bound and boundless so that practitioners are fully prepared for its
implementation.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069Language Teaching 11
Funding. Research was funded by the VELCOME project, granted by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(RTI2018-094601-B-100). It was also supported by Assess.net, a Marie Curie Fellowship project (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018
845783), funded by the European Commission, Research Executive Agency, Horizon 2020.
Notes
1
MOOS are Object-Oriented MUDs (Multiple User Dimensions or Domains). These are virtual places where students can
come together to interact and learn.
2
eTandem is a specific model of VE. Tandem learning refers to a partnership in which two people with different mother
tongues work together with the purpose of learning each other’s native language and learning about each other’s character
and culture (Little & Brammerts, 1996, p. 10).
3
Although CLIL and EMI are sometimes used indistinctly, some authors suggest that CLIL describes more accurately bilin-
gual education in secondary contexts, while EMI is preferred to refer to non-language content subjects which are taught
through English in higher education settings (Smit & Dafouz, 2012).
4
Evaluating and Upscaling Telecollaborative Teacher Education (582934-EPP-1-2016-2-ES- EPPKA3-PI-POLICY);
Evidence-Validated Online Learning through Virtual Exchange (https://evolve-erasmus.eu/).
5
https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm
6
‘Big C’ and ‘Little c’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2008) are terms used to describe the highly ‘visible’ traits often associated with a
particular culture (food, clothing, traditions would be ‘Big C’) and ‘little c’ commonly refers to more intangible and perhaps
regional aspects related to aspects such as social norms or communication characteristics.
References
Abrams, S. (2020). Reconsidering attitude as a relational, negotiated sociocognitive construct. In A. Oskoz & M. Vinagre
(Eds.), Understanding attitude in intercultural virtual communication CALICO special volume: Advances in CALL research
and practice (pp. 9–29). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Akiyama, Y. (2014). Using skype to focus on form in Japanese telecollaboration: Lexical categories as a new task variable. In
S. Li & P. Swanson (Eds.), Engaging language learners through technology integration: Theory, application and outcomes
(pp. 181–209). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Alonso, I., & Vinagre, M. (2017). Interculturality and identity in computer-mediated communication: Findings from L2
teaching contexts. CALL (SI), 30(5), 343–350. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1321329
Anguera Cerarols, C. (2013). L’ensenyament de l’espai geogràfic en una aula d’anglès de primària. Bellaterra Journal of
Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(4), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.549
Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from
multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin-
trel.2004.04.001
Avgousti, M. I. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: A systematic review. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 819–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1455713
Avram, M., Micallef, N., Patil, S., & Menczer, F. (2020). Exposure to social engagement metrics increases vulnerability to mis-
information. Technical Report 2005.04682, arXiv, 2020. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Observatory on Social
Media.
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018). Project-based learning and technology. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of
English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Beckett, G. H., Slater, T., & Mohan, B. A. (2020). Philosophical foundation, theoretical approaches and gaps in the literature.
In G. H. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching and assessment. Key
approaches, technology tools and frameworks (pp. 3–22). New York/London, UK: Routledge.
Bejarano Sánchez, G., & Giménez Manrique, G. (2018). What makes our schools unique? A telecollaborative experience from
the perspective of two ‘new-comers’. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), In this together: Teachers’ experiences with trans-
national, telecollaborative language learning projects (pp. 145–181). New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Belz, J. A. (2003). From the Special Issue Editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 2–5. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/
speced.html.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the
intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bonet Pueyo, A. (2018). Making a difference: Reflecting on a telecollaborative project aimed at social change. In M. Dooly &
R. O’Dowd (Eds.), In this together: Teachers’ experiences with transnational, telecollaborative language learning projects
(pp. 123–144). New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41–71. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2723.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482100006912 Melinda Dooly and Margarita Vinagre
Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in tandem using the internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign
language learning (pp. 121–130). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson
Education.
Bruun, S. (2018). Global goals: A virtual project with students from Sweden and Tanzania. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.),
In this together: Teachers’ experiences with transnational, telecollaborative language learning projects (pp. 199–215).
New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Kleban, M. (2016). Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A
case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.904360
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cappellini, M. (2019). A proposal to study the links between the sociocultural and the linguistic dimensions of eTandem
interactions. In A. Turula, M. Kurek, & T. Lewis (Eds.), Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: in service
of social inclusion and global citizenship (pp. 99–104). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.35.945
Cappellini, M., Lewis, T., & Rivens Mompean, A. (Eds.). (2017). Learner autonomy and web 2.0. Sheffield: Equinox.
Cedefop. (2017). CEDEFOP opinion survey on vocational education and training in Europe. Thessaloniki, Greece: European
Centre for Development of Vocational Training.
Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International
Journal, 10(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775
Çiftçi, Y. E., & Savaş, P. (2018). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies
published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3), 278–298. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000313
Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. https:
www.coe.int/lang-cefr.
Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register
in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 68(4),
422–450. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1279
Cunningham, J., & Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2020). What’s with the attitude? Exploring attitudinal resources in telecollaboration
for teacher education. In A. Oskoz & M. Vinagre (Eds.), Understanding attitude in intercultural virtual communication.
CALICO special volume: Advances in CALL research and practice (pp. 145–165). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Cunningham, J. D., & Akiyama, Y. (2018). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based telecollaboration: A scoping review.
CALICO Journal, 35(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.33156
Dervin, F., & Gross, Z. (2016). Introduction: Towards the simultaneity of intercultural competence. In F. Dervin & Z. Gross (Eds.),
Intercultural competence in education. Alternative approaches for different times (pp. 1–10). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed., vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dooly, M. (2010). The teacher 2.0. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0. Language, literacies and intercultural
learning in the 21st century (pp. 277–303). New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M. (2015). Networked classrooms and networked minds: Language teaching in a brave new world. In C. J. Jenks &
P. Seedhouse (Eds.), International perspectives on the ELT classroom (pp. 84–109). Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK/
New York, USA: Palgrave MacMillan.
Dooly, M. (2016). ‘Please remove your avatar from my personal space’: Competences of the telecollaboratively efficient per-
son. In T. Lewis & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 192–208). New York,
NY/London, UK: Routledge.
Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In C. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology in second language teach-
ing and learning (pp. 169–183). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2020). ‘What do you zinc about the project?’: Examples of technology-enhanced project-based lan-
guage learning. In G. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assess-
ment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 126–145). New York, UK/Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). Researching online interaction and exchange in foreign language education: Introduction to
the volume. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange. Theories,
methods and challenges (pp. 11–41). New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (2018). Telecollaboration in the foreign language classroom: A review of its origins and its appli-
cation to language teaching practices. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), In this together: Teachers’ experiences with trans-
national, telecollaborative language learning projects (pp. 11–34). New York, NY/Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evaluate Group. (2019). Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: A European policy experiment.
Dublin: Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.29.9782490057337
Flowers, S., Kelsen, B., & Cvitkovic, B. (2019). Learner autonomy versus guided reflection: How different methodologies affect inter-
cultural development in online intercultural exchange. ReCALL, 31(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344019000016
Fuchs, C., Snyder, B., Tung, B., & Han, Y. J. (2017). The multiple roles of the task design mediator in telecollaboration.
ReCALL, 29(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344017000088
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 11 Oct 2021 at 19:09:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069You can also read
